Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abkhazia-Germany relations


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. This artcile is now something comlpletely else, so the rationale for deletion does not apply. Closing. Tone 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazia-Germany relations
The article suffers from issues related to Notability, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. First off, Wikipedia is not a news collection. Second, construction of the “bilateral relations” story based upon one obscure event is OR. The last but not the least: Germany has not recognized Abkhazia’s independence and regards the region as part of Georgia. Hence, there is no bilateral diplomatic relations between Germany and Abkhazia contrary to what the article claims. KoberTalk 03:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Would not Germany's non-recognition of a country be quite notable and covered extensively and in-depth in the media?
 * May be, but certainly not under the name of non-existent "Abkhazia-Germany relations". Germany not only refused to recognize Abkhazia, but considers it part of Georgia. Hence this is more relevant to the Georgia-Germany relations.--KoberTalk 05:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

*Delete I have to agree with the nomination. Since Germany does not recognize Abkhazia the relations are non-existant. The fact that the visa department of the German embassy in Russia made a decision not to issue a visa does not constitute (diplomatic) relations. The article seems to have been written by a person angry at the denial of the visa and is written in a very POVish tone. Passportguy (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC) *Merge to Foreign relations of Abkhazia, since the content is not already replicated there. Mandsford (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Now that most POV has been removed and article has been expanded. Passportguy (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Foreign relations of Abkhazia. The content is replicated there. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Foreign relations of Abkhazia. If the content is already there we don't need this article which has a problematic name. Offliner (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent coverage of the topic stated by the article title. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I already merged the material into Foreign relations of Abkhazia, part of our merging project, making this AfD obsolete. Ikip (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kober.Biophys (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge for now. Probably some of the individual ones can be brought out separately. I point out though, that the very fact that German has not recognized the country is the basis for the incident that makes up the content of the article. Non-recognition can be a significant international relationship. I think, in fact,  that there is probably in German and Georgian and Abkaz and Russian a good deal of material over that non-recognition. We might at least be able to find the German. 06:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)DGG (talk)
 * Delete now that the content has been merged by Ikip, quite nicely I might add. Mandsford (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note there has been some edit-war going on with Foreign relations of Abkhazia. I included the content on Germany when I made the table, it got taken out, put back in etc. Don't think it is constructive to remove sourced material relevant to the subject. Relations do not have to be formal or friendly to be relevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An edit war? That figures.  I see you've already got someone who erases information that he doesn't think "deserves" to be in an encyclopedia .  That's really gonna help your cause.  Geez Louise.  Mandsford (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My preference on these is to redirect rather than delete, as a convenience to readers. If they are looking for something about the relationship between the pair of countries, the redirect will come to the top of the list. No big deal though. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While I haven't edited the Foreign relations of Abkhazia page I have to say that looking at it it does seem very POV, as it only gives the Abkhazian persepctive on this incident. Also it may be quite questionable whether a single case of visa denial actually constitutes "relations" in the sense of both the other listed conntries and the content of similar relations pages of other countries. Passportguy (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That struck me too. I was plugging away, making "country list" tables in "Foreign relations of" articles, then checking some of the individual "bi-lateral relations" articles to see if they were stubs whose content should be merged in, or complete articles. This one seemed, as you say, sort of POV. On the other hand, the incident seemed relevant. Perhaps wrongly, I just merged the content assuming other editors would find other sources that would give more balance, left a note here, and moved on to the next pair of countries. Lack of balance to me is a reason for expansion, not deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, as patent nonsense. Germany doesn't even recognise Abkhazia, but sees it as a part of Georgia, so obviously no relations exist. The content of this article should really be merged to an article about Georgia-Germany relations, if any where. --Martintg (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - relations do not exist, and their non-existence is itself non-notable (unlike, say, US-Cuba relations or Armenia-Turkey relations). One news bulletin on a visa denial hardly changes that equation. - Biruitorul Talk 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Foreign relations of Abkhazia per above. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be potential for an article based on the first few Google results for "germany abkhasia". Potential is not to me a reason to keep. The article needs expansion with good sources to be kept. I may do it. 08.07.2008 Germany Proposes Plan for Ending Violence in AbkhaziaWORLD Germany issues visa to seriously ill Abkhazian teenager Some Details of German Abkhaz Plan Reported Germany The Latest To Step Into Georgian-Abkhaz Fray Germany Proposes Peace Plan for Abkhazia Informationen zur Deutschen Außenpolitik Peace plan for Abkhazia http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/1650_july_17_2008/1650_german.html German foreign minister in Georgia, Abkhazia] Encyclopedia of Human Rights Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia (S/2008/631) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't all that needs to be said said right here? It seems to me the height of absurdity to start a chain of "Abkhazia-X relations" articles about states with which Abkhazia doesn't have relations, and whose positions on the issue diverge very little from one another--particularly when we have that article and this one already. - Biruitorul Talk 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "What is said in International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia relevant to this discussion is: '"Chancellor Angela Merkel said, "this contradicts the principle of territorial integrity, a principle based on the international law of nations and for this reason it is unacceptable". Aymatth2 (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don’t see point in redirecting the article based on a single non-notable incident to other entries. There is clear problem with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT. Furthermore, this “controversy” involves the German embassy in Moscow which denied visa to a Russian citizen. What this has to do with the fictional “Abkhazia-Germany relations”?--KoberTalk 05:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing stops us from adding in a little relevant content there. And again, let's not glide over the larger issue: are we opening the door for Abkhazia-US relations, Abkhazia-China, Abkhazia-France, and so on? - Biruitorul Talk 16:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Abkhazia. This has nothing to do with Georgia-Germany relations, but to do with the foreign relations of the sovereign and independent Republic of Abkhazia, and problems of its foreign relations belong in an Abkhaz article, not a Georgian one. --Russavia Dialogue 07:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sovereign and independent, just like the Republic of Kosovo, eh? Oh, wait, the Kremlin doesn't recognise that one... - Biruitorul Talk 16:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Abkhazia does not have a wide international recognition, and certainly there are no official relations between Germany and Abkhazia, Germany does not even recognize independence of Abkhazia. Grand  master  08:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I have done a sketchy expansion, enough to establish notability. It is an interesting subject, with a lot going on. Wish I had more time. Perhaps some other editors will add detail. There are many sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you've done a quality work, but that has nothing to do with "Abkhazia-Germany relations". The info you have added deal with the German diplomacy in Georgia and its region Abkhazia, which had not been recognized even by Russia as "independent" at the time of Steinmeier's efforts. --KoberTalk 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This has everything to do with Abkhazia-Germany relations, which is the interactions and relationships between the two governments, their positions and opinions about each other. Diplomatic recognition has nothing to do with this. Offliner (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. After the recent expansion the article is large enough and notability has been demonstrated. Offliner (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Germany does not recognise Abkhazia's independence and has no established relations with it. Parishan (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the problem with the article or its name? I sense that the name suggests to some editors that Wikipedia officially recognizes the Republic of Abkhazia. Perhaps "relations" could be changed to "relationship" or "involvement" or "engagement", or something like that. "Diplomacy" would be too limiting, since there is more to the activity described than that. Germans died when the helicopter was shot down. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I find a problem in the article in general. If a Zimbabwean person happens to set foot in Vitoria-Gasteiz, that does not necessarily create a necessity for an article called "Basque Country-Zimbabwe relations/involvement/engagement." Parishan (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To me the German involvement in Abkhazia (my preferred title) is a complex and interesting subject. The minor topic of the 1870-1942 German settlements is sufficiently covered in Caucasus Germans, although it deserves passing mention. Much more interesting (to me) is the significance of Abkhazia as a "troublesome" area on the route between the Baku oilfields and Germany, which caused two military interventions (1918 and 1942) and perhaps has something to do with the recent flurry of diplomacy and peacekeeping efforts.
 * But I prefer not to pass judgment on whether a subject is worthy of inclusion based on personal interest. For example, I have no interest in Paris Hilton or Pokémon, but I accept that these articles are valid based on the principles of notability and verifiability. This article has a lot of well-sourced content - and much more could be added. German involvement in Abkazia is as notable a subject as many others.
 * Could the content be found in other articles? Quite a lot of it probably could be placed in articles on Abkhazia, Georgia, World War 1, the UN missions, German diplomacy and so on. Like many articles, this one assembles material around a theme. For example, Monet is discussed in broader articles on French art, Impressionism, Art Institute of Chicago, En plein air and so on. One could argue that the thematic articles are redundant - the content could be assembled from "point form" articles that discuss one very narrow subject - but that leads to absurd conclusions. This article would help a student interested in why Germany is so involved in Abkazia to understand some of the reasons, and would point them to further areas of research. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. Iberieli (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that since the article was nominated much content has been added, and all the original content has been removed. The only thing the current article has in common with the one that was nominated is the name, which as several editors have pointed out is technically incorrect - the article should be renamed. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * keep, possibly rename, so that there will be no impresion that there is official recognition. - Altenmann >t 01:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. The name is misleading since, as has been established long before I swanned in here, they do not have relations but the not-relationship or whatever it is is significant and notable and so the content should be kept and the title should be dispensed with. HJMitchell    You rang?  19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the decision is to keep, and nobody here objects, I will rename to German involvement in Abkhazia Aymatth2 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aymatth2's contribution is appreciated. I'm withdrawing the nomination and renaming the article into German involvement in Georgian-Abkhaz conflict to meet the content and context of the article. The discussion can now be continued on that article's Talk.--KoberTalk 03:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.